U. of Chi. Professor and "Scientist" Wants to Block Sunlight to Cool Earth

High electricity prices required to fund tax expenditures resulting from green energy subsidies for one.

What displaced populations.

 

Did you read OP? We could decrease global temps by about a half degree C in about a year. And further decrease that global temp or maintain it. We know exactly how to do this. There was a test run analog back in 1991 that has been studied extensively. How can you not know this? Blinders?

Furthermore, we have no idea what your definition of reversal is. Define it and I can provide other scenarios with time periods. Reversal to me is reaching a point temps no longer increases and begin decreasing. We have the ability to do that in a year or less if we wished to.

There are so many tools we have to decrease atmospheric CO2 and temperature that we aren’t using to their potential. I’m part of a demographic that decreases the atmospheric CO2 levels in the northern hemisphere each summer. We also have helped to create an environment where summer daytime temps are lower than decades ago. The carbon CYCLE is real.


My statements are all essentially repetition of results of peer reviewed research. Nothing is misleading.

What evidence produced through application of the scientific method have I denied?

I only characterize failure as failure. I’m all for transitioning away from fossil fuel usage. But I prefer to live in reality, not some fantasy land you seem to inhabit. I’m not scared of the fact warming is allowing us to grow more food. I’m not scared of the fact warming is reducing net all cause mortality related to temperature. I’m not frightened of the fact cost of natural disasters has drastically fallen as percentage of GDP. I’m not frightened of projections of increased longevity. Because I’m not motivated by fear I can be objective.

If your goal is global REDUCTION of greenhouse gas emissions, annual new record emissions are a FAILURE. I don’t care about your feelings, that’s just reality.

And your feelings about warming and nuclear power are irrational. It’s been well established warming is saving lives. The evidence paid for by Bill Gates and NASA is very clear about that. The UN has provided evidence there is no risk from Fukushima water releases, yet you fear that as well.

That’s nice. Doesn’t change the fact hydroelectric in China kills far more than nuclear EVER has. Doesn’t change the fact emissions continue to set new records globally. Doesn’t change the fact warming increases agricultural production. Doesn’t change the fact fewer are dying from suboptimal temperatures because of warming. Doesn’t change the fact warming is reversible very quickly (but few wish to do it because they know the truth that it would be net detrimental).

Doesn’t change the fact problems like sea level rise in New Orleans, flooding in Bangladesh, and high summer temps in Houston can be solved in a decade or three without reducing emissions at all.

The brick wall you keep running into is the reality that you have too little understanding of the issue to debate it effectively. Everything you thought you knew is wrong and 90% of available evidence produced through application of the scientific method has been withheld from you. If you are asking about if we can reverse global warming in less than 1000 years in a thread about geoengineering, you have a lot to learn before you are qualified to have informed opinions, let alone debate effectively.

 

Please substantiate your claim of 90 billion tons. SMH.

 

Extremely skeptical about this claim, and I’ll call it out as bogus. And even if it is true (???), what does it mean? Mankind raises the temperature of the planet 2-3 degrees, finds out that it’s a freaking disaster, and then lowers it 1/2 degree, but cities are underwater, and refugees are everywhere. I call BS!!! Also, as usual, your original claimagain was misleading because you didn’t say « partially reverse ».

And BTW - voluminous posts do nothing to enhance your credibility. I don’t get paid to post on PF, and I don’t have time to read your diatribes, and I doubt anybody gives them the time of day.

 

Did a quick Google search and WHYY says there are 88,000 metric tons of spent fuel rods in the U.S. with an additional 2,000 metric tons being added each year. (https://whyy.org/segments/us-nuclear-waste-store-tons/#:~:text=The%20U.S.%20has%2088%2C000%20metric,stainless%20steel%20several%20inches%20thick) Media_Truth must of added some zeros by accident.

 

Here’s a start.

https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2024/04/24/solar-geoengineering-to-cool-the-planet-is-it-worth-the-risks/#:~:text=Harvard's Solar Geoengineering Research Program,ice loss and glacier melt.

Reversing is reversing. Restoring conditions existing decades or centuries ago is not reversing. I don’t care how you play semantics. We can quickly cool the planet. That’s reversing warming (AGW). And we don’t need decades to build a fleet of airplanes as the article claims either….

Again, we could also address the sequestration side of the carbon cycle and reverse and restore earlier conditions much faster than most realize. The share of AGW that comes from deforestation and land use change can be quickly addressed as well. But there is no desire to do so.

It’s amusing you have time to post verifiably false information about climate. You have time to make false accusations about my posts. You have time to lie about studies I present. But you don’t have time to LEARN facts about climate and climate change. You can remain uninformed I guess it’s your choice.

 

Yeh, few zeroes here and there is no big deal to our resident scientist/engineer. His posts seem to be very light on facts and heavy on misinformation. No wonder he’s so scared of stuff. Fear usually is the result of misunderstanding or lack of understanding.

 

And where’s my freaking check! @Media_Truth seems to be implying someone is paying me to post facts on PF. LOL.

Sorry, media man. Don’t need anyone’s money to post. You pay me well to turn sunlight into food and consumer products you buy. I’m just here to learn and share knowledge I paid good money to acquire and learn to acquire. I believe it’s selfish to not share one’s blessings. You don’t have to accept what I share. I’m happy to continue sharing regardless.

 

You can stop copying and pasting all your spam. I only read as far as the BS. In this case - the first sentence. Conspiracy anyone. S57 has figured out a way to FIX Climate Change. All the IPCC, NASA, Royal Society are BS, and S57 has the answer on PF. What a hero!

 

Is that “minuscule”?

 

LOL. It’s certainly not my idea. I’m adamantly opposed to it. However, Harvard University has a whole research team devoted to the technology. I can’t believe you’ve never heard of geoengineering by seeding particulates into the stratosphere. Researchers have been studying it for many years.

Your boy Joe Biden approves of pursuing this technology. As do your buddies at NASA and NOAA.

https://www.technologyreview.com/20...ing-a-solar-geoengineering-research-plan/amp/

As does the Koch brothers…,oh ****, that’s not the Koch’s it’s Bill Gates again!

These techniques are not new. China has millions of square miles of territory under cloud seeding geoengineering now. We used geoengineering to influence precipitation during the Vietnam war. It was called operation Popeye.

Aerosol particulate in the stratosphere is next level, but geoengineering is old hat. Can’t believe you think it’s my idea. I wasn’t born until 1974. Operation Popeye ended in 1972 (at least as far as we know).

You keep reading. Every bit you read from me will help erase your knowledge deficit.

 

Again I read to the first false or misleading statement, and again that was the first sentence. From your link—-

“The basic idea is that we might be able to deliberately tweak the climate system in ways that release more heat into space”.

So you misled again, stating “We could decrease global temps by about a half degree C in about a year.”. You need a BIG, BIG “If” in front of that statement.

These misleading references of yours are so easy to find. Like the last time, I will stop wasting my time on your drivel.

 

Six orders of magnitude - no big deal. But this guy is an engineer?

 

Yes, that is a cube ~ 40 meters on each side. This was posted previously with references. The technology to safely store spent fuel rod material (some of which can be reprocessed) has existed for decades.

 

Yes. 88,000 is 0.0001% of 88,000,000,000. That’s pretty minuscule. If your beliefs were based on reality instead of opinions that are off by a factor of 1,000,000, you may have less fear of this big bad dangerous world.

 

Worldwide problem recognized by all, and another irreversible gift to future generations —-

https://cen.acs.org/environment/pollution/nuclear-waste-pilesscientists-seek-best/98/i12

Emitting radiation that can pose serious risks to human health and the environment, the waste, much of it decades old, awaits permanent disposal in geological repositories, but none are operational.
…
sit in temporary storage containers in the US. While these waste materials, which can be harmful to human health and the environment, wait for a more permanent home, their containers age. In some cases, the aging containers have already begun leaking their toxic contents.

“It’s a societal problem that has been handed down to us from our parents’ generation,” says Frankel, who is a materials scientist at the Ohio State University. “And we are—more or less—handing it to our children.”

That’s Gerald S. Frankel’s matter-of-fact take on the thousands of metric tons of used solid fuel from nuclear power plants worldwide and the millions of liters of radioactive liquid waste from weapons production that sit in temporary storage containers in the US. While these waste materials, which can be harmful to human health and the environment, wait for a

 

LOL. Again, nothing is misleading. Just reporting on the actual science. If you don’t like Harvard, try Yale reporting on peer reviewed research.


https://environment-review.yale.edu/solar-geoengineering-spectacle-tragedy-or-solution

I’m using Ivy League university references now because you have rejected peer reviewed journals including Nature and Lancet. You have rejected any study funded by Bill Gates, NASA, or USDA that conflicts with your opinions. You have rejected publications of research done by the United Nations. You’ve rejected information from the IPCC. I’m trying Ivy League universities now. And you are throwing them under your opinion bus now as well. You don’t like Harvard’s language so let’s see how you like Yale.

Just a heads up, I did not put Dr. Sovacool up to this. He did it all on his own. Wasn’t my idea. I’m just informing you about his research. If you believe his reasearch is misleading or BS go ahead and correct it. LOL.

 

It’s a political decision not to dispose of the spent fuel rods properly. The technology has been available for decades.

 

Says he WAS an engineer. And a scientist. But doesn’t care about facts at all. Not phased one bit by being wrong by a factor of 1,000,000. That doesn’t cut it in my line of work.

 

No excuse. Until that happens, no new nuclear power plants.

 

Hypotheticals taken as Fact fallacy. Misleading, conniving, dishonest, disrespectful, false illusion…

 

Tell that to the Chinese Communist Party and Japan among many other countries.

 

I can only HOPE to alter behavior in the U S where I am a citizen.

 

Ok. So you are saying Yale climate department, Dr. Savacool etc. are dishonest, conniving, disrespectful, misleading…..

Cool. Now you have rejected evidence from Nature, Lancet, Harvard, Yale, NASA, the United Nations organizations including the IPCC and IAEA, NOAA, and the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation.

Funny you can’t address the peer reviewed studies or the scientists. All you can do is lash out in anger with ad hominem fallacy directed at me. I’m just the messenger. Why say I’m dishonest when your argument is with Dr. Savacool and Yale University?

And I’m not the guy saying there is 90 billion tons of highly reactive nuclear waste in the US. I don’t think you should be criticizing ANYONE for dishonesty after telling that whopper.

But go ahead. Show us where the analysis of evidence by Dr. Savacool is wrong. Show where he’s being dishonest or conniving. Go ahead. I’m reporting on HIS research. Show me where he’s wrong or the research he analyzed is wrong!

But you won’t. Because all you have is fallacious arguments and unsubstantiated opinions. They can’t really compete with Dr. Savacool. Or Yale. Or Nature. Or the Lancet. Or NASA. Or USDA. Or all the studies I’ve presented funded by Bill Gates. Or NOAA. But you will still insist your opinions are more valuable than evidence produced through application of the scientific method. You won’t produce any evidence Dr. Savacool is wrong. You will just lash out at me in anger that you were wrong…..again.

 

You are not acting in the best interests of your country. But the Chinese Communist Party is thankful.